*************************************************

THE LATE, GREAT AMERICA!

*************************************************

Naomi Klein’s latest book, “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,” explores a thesis that present-day global capitalism took hold when its advocates learned to exploit disasters. After a disaster (war, tsunami, terrorist attack), governments can push their agenda for worsening labor conditions, looser regulation, and pocket lining exercises (Enron, Halliburton) while the reeling, disaster struck population of the world has its attention elsewhere.

Klein attributes this technique to Milton Friedman, who is reported to have said that only a crisis--real or perceived--produces real change. She connects this idea to the fundamental notion underpinning CIA torture techniques (as reported in CIA interrogation manuals from 1963 and 1983)--to produce a state of shock in which the victim is out of control of its faculties, a “suspended animation” that can be exploited to get victims to do things that violate their own ethics or beliefs.

******

The Rise of Transnational Corporations

or Screw America or The Corporate

Take-Over of America

Wikipedia’s definition of a multinational corporation is any enterprise that manages production establishments or delivers services in at least two countries.

In 1995, trade associated with US multinational corporations, their foreign affiliates, or both accounted for 62%. Sometimes, multinational corporations are referred to as "transnational corporations."

This means a corporation that has its facilities and other assets in at least one country other than its home country. Such companies have offices and/or factories in different countries and usually have a centralized head office where they coordinate global management. Very large multinationals have budgets that exceed those of many small countries.

A good news alert from Dot Calm:

*************************************************

Have you heard about PLUMPY NUT?

Too wonderful to be true?

But it is!

Plumpy Nut could save the children of Niger and,
in fact,

all the starving children around the world.

Plumpy Nut, which substitutes for mother’s milk, is

an extremely nutritious, relatively inexpensive

peanut butter-like paste dispensed through a

tube...and (hey, Mikey!) the children like it!

*************************************************

The Beginning of the End for

Corporate Led Globalization?

By William Greider, The Nation.

Posted January 19, 2007.

The Democrats in Congress are in a prime position to deal with fallacies and contradictions of global trade.

Thanks to the aggressive spirit of many newly elected Democrats, this Congress offers an encouraging opening for opponents of corporate led globalization to go on offense. For decades, the critics of the global system have been pinned down by multinational business and finance and reduced to playing defense. Labor, environment and other reform advocates have mostly tried to block new trade agreements negotiated by Republican and Democratic Presidents. Their efforts usually have fallen short.

This year could be different. In both the House and Senate, the growing nucleus of legislators who are skeptical of or downright hostile to globalization is strong enough to force debates on some reform ideas. That doesn't mean the reformers will necessarily prevail. But they can employ the kind of political jujitsu that gradually leverages change by forcing reluctant officials to cast roll call votes they would rather avoid. Do incumbents in the middle stand with the public's rising concerns or with the multinationals? The Republican right used this tactic brilliantly for many years as its way to take over the party from traditional conservatives. Progressive Democrats can do the same if they're willing to put some of their fellow Democrats on the spot and discomfit party leaders who may want to avoid controversies. Forcing a roll call and taking down names of those who vote wrong is useful, even if the issue is likely to lose. Voters are educated and mobilized. Bruised incumbents eventually change their views. Or voters change their representatives.

Multinational corporations

Multinational corporations, whether American or foreign owned, are supposed to pay taxes on the profits they earn in the United States.

Read these definitions carefully. Neither suggests a happy, prosperous continuation of America as we know it. 1. Same as multinational corporation, though for some reason this term seems to be preferred by those who don't like them. 2. A corporation whose national identity is a matter of convenience only and that will move its headquarters readily in response to incentives. Can you say HALLIBURTON? I thought you could.

******

Rachel Carson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rachel Louise Carson (May 27, 1907 – April 14, 1964) was an American marine biologist and nature writer whose landmark book, Silent Spring (1962), is often credited with having launched the global environmental movement. Silent Spring had an immense effect in the United States, where it spurred a reversal in national pesticide policy.

Carson started her career as a scientist in the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries and transitioned to a full time nature writer in the 1950s. Her widely praised 1951 bestseller, The Sea around Us, won her financial security and recognition as an extremely gifted writer. Her next book, The Edge of the Sea, and the republished version of her first book, Under the Sea Wind, were also bestsellers.

In the late 1950s Carson turned her attention to the environmental problems caused by synthetic pesticides. The result was Silent Spring, which brought environmental concerns to an unprecedented portion of the American public. The work led to a nationwide ban on the pesticide DDT, and the grassroots environmental movement it inspired led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency by President Nixon. Carson was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

*************************************************

The more clearly we can focus our attention on the wonders and realities of the universe around us, the less taste we shall have for destruction.

--Rachel Carson

*************************************************

The Marvel of MoveOn

MoveOn allows each of us a voice in fighting for things that are important. It fights against infuriating things threatening to destroy our country.

The MoveOn family of organizations brings real Americans back into the political process. With over 3.3 million members across America – from carpenters to stay at home moms to business leaders – we work together to realize the progressive promise of our country. MoveOn is a service – a way for busy but concerned citizens to find their political voice in a system dominated by big money and big media.

The MoveOn family of organizations is made up of a couple of different pieces. MoveOn.org Civic Action, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, formerly known just as MoveOn.org, primarily focuses on education and advocacy on important national issues. MoveOn.org Political Action, a federal PAC, formerly known as MoveOn PAC, mobilizes people across the country to fight important battles in Congress and help elect candidates who reflect our values. Both organizations are entirely funded by individuals.

Every member has a voice in choosing the direction for both MoveOn.org Political Action and MoveOn.org Civic Action. Using our ActionForum software, you can propose priorities and strategies. Both organizations also take the initiative to organize quick action on other timely issues that our members care about.

A short history

MoveOn.org Civic Action was started by Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, two Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Although neither had experience in politics, they shared deep frustration with the partisan warfare in Washington D.C. and the ridiculous waste of our nation's focus at the time of the impeachment mess. On September 18, 1998, they launched an online petition to "Censure President Clinton and Move On to Pressing Issues Facing the Nation." Within days, they had hundreds of thousands of individuals signed up and began looking for ways these voices could be heard.

In 1998, MoveOn PAC was formed as a political action committee so that like minded, concerned citizens could influence the outcome of congressional elections, and in turn, the balance of power in Washington, D.C. Now known as MoveOn.org Political Action, this organization provides individuals, who normally have little political power, an opportunity to aggregate their contributions with others to gain a greater voice in the political process, and brings people together to take important stands on the most important issues facing our country.

The MoveOn Peace campaign was founded independently by Eli Pariser, a Maine native and recent graduate of Simon's Rock College of Bard. In the days following September 11, 2001, he launched an online petition calling for a restrained and multi lateral response to the attacks, which was quickly signed by more than half a million people. Eli joined forces with MoveOn soon afterward and is now MoveOn.org Political Action’s Executive Director.

MoveOn.org Political Action, one of the largest Political Action Committees in the country, brings real Americans into politics to fight for a more progressive America and elect progressive candidates. It conducts major campaigns, from its work to protect the Supreme Court from a hard right justice to its campaign to defeat the right wing and elect moderates and progressives in 2006. But in contrast to most PACs, which funnel industry contributions to candidates in exchange for access, MoveOn.org Political Action brings hundreds of thousands of small donors together to elect candidates who will represent the American people. With one secure online credit card transaction, you can immediately make contributions to several campaigns. All contributions go to the individual campaigns in the amounts you specify. MoveOn.org Political Action takes care of all the required FEC paperwork by transmitting necessary contributor information to each campaign.

Because it’s a federal PAC, MoveOn.org Political Action can’t accept donations greater than $5,000. And in fact, MoveOn.org Political Action is mostly funded by people who give less than $100 – folks who don’t have a lot of money but want to see a change. Through 2004, MoveOn.org Political Action raised approximately $11 million dollars for 81 candidates from over 300,000 donors. In 2005, MoveOn.org Political Action grew to 3.3 million members and 125,000 members contributed $9 million to progressive candidates and campaigns (average donation: $45).

MoveOn.org Civic Action, a nonprofit organization, is engaged in a campaign to reform the media and other work aimed at bringing real people back into the democratic process by making sure legislators hear their voices.

In 2002 and 2003, MoveOn.org Civic Action conducted a campaign to stop the Iraq war, as well as campaigns to keep the federal courts moderate, support campaign finance reform, oppose the repeal of the estate tax, and reduce America’s dependence on oil.

Over the years, MoveOn.org Civic Action has created a number of television and print advertisements to amplify the voices of MoveOn members.

*************************************************

INFORMATION IS POWER!

*************************************************

The following article from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is dated September 29, 2002. It is alarming to see how the pieces, once in place, explain so much regarding this administration’s behavior. Even more alarming is where our country will be taken after the 2008 elections and beyond.

Bush’s Real Goal in Iraq

by Jay Bookman,

Deputy Editorial Page Editor of The Atlanta Journal Constitution

September 29, 2002.

The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.

The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.

In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?

Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran. That explains the $500 million dollar embassy, too.

In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.

And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so will we.

Among the architects of this would be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.

Part of it is laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, 2002, marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.

It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."

In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.

"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long distance deployment of U.S. troops."

The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.

"At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.' "

Familiar themes

Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of the anti ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The administration has taken that course.

It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.

It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That is exactly the message being preached by Rumsfeld and others.

It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries." This year, the GOP led U.S. House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.

Here’s a quick break inserted just for you by Dot Calm:

*************************************************

Al Gore Won the Nobel Peace Prize

for

“An Inconvenient Truth”

CONGRATULATIONS, former Vice President Gore!

*************************************************

That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.

Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.

Constabulary duties

Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of the project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly identified Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as primary short term targets, well before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report, they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon war games have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power."

To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be required to perform "constabulary duties" the United States acting as policeman of the world and says that such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."

To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to challenge the United States, the report advocates a much larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.

More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia.

The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.

Effect on allies

The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.

The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense.

One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.

Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy he served as co chairman of the 2000 New Century project acknowledges that likelihood.

"If our allies want a free ride, and they probably will, we can't stop that," he says. But he also argues that the United States, given its unique position, has no choice but to act anyway.

"You saw the movie 'High Noon'?” he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."

Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international arena. Candidate Bush certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something that he or others have dared to discuss honestly with the American people. To the contrary, in his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly advocated a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to appeal to voters leery of military intervention.

For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as empire, understanding its connotations. But they also argue that it would be naive and dangerous to reject the role that history has thrust upon us. Kagan, for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would establish permanent military bases in a post war Iraq.

"I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."

Costly global commitment

Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will produce other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for nations such as Iran and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive position, puts it rather gently. If a regime change were to take place in Iraq, other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the message that having them.....is attracting attention that is not favorable and is not helpful," he says.

Kagan is more blunt.

"People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up."

The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999 2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.

The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.

Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come.

Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?

If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.

That's what this is about.

"Rebuilding America's Defenses," a 2000 report by the Project for the New American Century, listed 27 people as having attended meetings or contributed papers in preparation of the report. Among them are six who have since assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration. And the report seems to have become a blueprint for Bush's foreign and defense policy.

Paul Wolfowitz--Political science doctorate from University of Chicago and dean of the international relations program at Johns Hopkins University during the 1990s. Served in the Reagan State Department, moved to the Pentagon during the first Bush administration as undersecretary of defense for policy. Sworn in as deputy defense secretary in March 2001.

John Bolton--Yale Law grad who worked in the Reagan administration as an assistant attorney general. Switched to the State Department in the first Bush administration as assistant secretary for international organization affairs. Sworn in as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, May 2001.

Eliot Cohen--Harvard doctorate in government who taught at Harvard and at the Naval War College. Now directs strategic studies at Johns Hopkins and is the author of several books on military strategy. Was on the Defense Department's policy planning staff in the first Bush administration and is now on Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board.

I. Lewis Libby--Law degree from Columbia (Yale undergrad). Held advisory positions in the Reagan State Department. Was a partner in a Washington law firm in the late '80s before becoming deputy undersecretary of defense for policy in the first Bush administration (under Dick Cheney). Now is the vice president's chief of staff.

Dov Zakheim--Doctorate in economics and politics from Oxford University. Worked on policy issues in the Reagan Defense Department and went into private defense consulting during the 1990s. Was foreign policy adviser to the 2000 Bush campaign. Sworn in as undersecretary of defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Pentagon, May 2001.

Stephen Cambone--Political science doctorate from Claremont Graduate School. Was in charge of strategic defense policy at the Defense Department in the first Bush administration. Now heads the Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation at the Defense Department.

*************************************************

A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.

--Benjamin Franklin

*************************************************

Pilots and Aviation Professionals

Question the 9/11 Commission Report

Many pilots and aviation professionals have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This article is a collection of their public statements. There are statements by more than 50 pilots and aviation professionals that contradict or are critical of the 9/11 Commission Report. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed.

These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their professional responsibility for air traffic safety, demonstrate that criticism of the Commission Report is not inherently irresponsible or illogical, and that, in fact, it can be just the opposite.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: "Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed, and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers."

Veterans For Truth Association Statement: "Our mission, simply put, is to save the United States of America and to defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic. To that end, we seek to restore true values, integrity, honesty, and leadership in government at the local, state and national level. We are opposed to tyranny and corruption. We seek to move this Nation from a state of perpetual warfare to a state of prolonged peace and prosperity.

In pursuit of our mission we have initially chosen to present evidence exposing the deception and lies that many in the military/intelligence/industrial/media establishment have been telling Americans and the world since September 11, 2001 concerning the events of that tragic day. Our mission includes seeking, discovering, and presenting evidence revealing the truth about the events of 9/11." http://www.v911t.org

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Association Statement: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non partisan organization consisting of independent researchers and activists engaged in uncovering the true nature of the September 11, 2001 attacks."

Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven Association Statement: "We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001, by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations."

Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 170 Architects and Engineers: "On behalf of the people of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7." http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php

Petition of Solidarity to the Attorney General of New York for a new independent grand jury investigation of 9/11 11/19/04: "We the undersigned (a) think that there is ample evidence and probable cause to believe that many grave and still unresolved crimes were committed by US officials prior to, during and after the events of 9/11 and (b) observe that most of these apparent crimes, including but not limited to abetment of mass murder, criminal negligence, insider trading, and obstruction of justice fall well within the jurisdiction of New York's top law enforcement officials." http://www.justicefor911.org

Editor's note: for more information on the impact at the Pentagon, see General Stubblebine, Colonel Nelson, Commander Muga, Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. Latas, Major Rokke, Capt. Davis, Barbara Honegger, April Gallop, Colonel Bunel, and Steve DeChiaro. Google each name.

Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall and 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. It was not hit by an airplane. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." And five and a half years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.

Rob Balsamo--Co-founder, Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Commercial airline pilot. 4,000+ total hours flown.

"In May 2006, I was watching Glenn Beck’s show on CNN. The Department of Defense had just released the infamous "5 frames" of stop action video of the pentagon attack. Beck showed the frames and commented, "You can see a 757 in 10 seconds flat! Either that or a naked Michael Moore heading for the buffet! This should put all those conspiracy theories to rest.” While watching it, I'm thinking to myself, "I can’t see any 757.” And I'm asking myself, “Are there still unresolved questions regarding 9/11?"

Mike Chambers--Co-founder, Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

In an audio interview: "I just recently quote, unquote woke up back in May 2006 due to a video that I saw on mainstream media telling me that I could see a 757 in ten seconds flat going across the Pentagon lawn. And from there I did my research, and here I am now with Pilotsfor911Truth.org. When I started my research, I said to myself, I am going to do everything in my power to figure out and back up the official story, the government's story the government fairy tale, I now call it so I can have faith and believe in my government. We have gotten to the point where I haven't been able to find anything to confirm the government's story.

Now, we received the flight data information through the NTSB back in August 2006. The files that we originally received from the NTSB show the aircraft too high to have hit the light poles. They can see that on Pilotsfor911Truth.org Full Analysis. And of course in our film Pandora's Black Box Chapter 2.

The flight data recorder raw file that we have just decoded is still showing too high for the Pentagon. It shows the radar altimeter at 273 feet. That means 273 feet above the ground. OK? The Pentagon only gets up to 77 feet."

Glen Stanish--Co-founder, Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Commercial airline pilot for American Airlines, ATA, TWA, and Continental. 15,000+ total hours flown. Aircraft flown: Boeing 737, McDonnell Douglas MD 80.

-- Essay: Where is the Wreckage of UAL 93, 2/15/06. "I most certainly and honestly believe, that sometime in the near future, it will become common knowledge that the events of 9/11 were an "inside job" designed, engineered, and committed by a very large and "in control" rogue element within our United States federal government, used as a false cause, a pretext, a lie, to invade two natural resource rich foreign countries, to further pursue and expand an empire, to change the borders of the Middle East countries, and as part of the war on terror, or more appropriately, the war on freedom, was used to frighten the American people so they would allow the infringement of their civil liberties and constitutional rights, to allow for closer monitoring and further oppression."

-- Letter to the Air Line Pilots Association 10/3/06: "I have been a proud member of the Air Line Pilots Association for almost 16 years ... Throughout my piloting career, I have tried to uphold the published ALPA Canons of professional airmanship, safety and comfort of passengers and crew.

My initial reaction to September the 11th was that it was as advertised; that these aircraft had been hijacked; that it was a big terrorist operation; that we were attacked by Muslim extremists. I kind of just believed the initial story. I was in a state of shock.

As reports came out through the news and some alternative news services that I had been subscribing to, there were some things that were reported by credible people at these accident sites that did not agree with my professional training and my background."

All the recorded sources, all the different photographic evidence that was produced by CNN and ABC, they all show this pod. It's there. You can see it with your own eyes. And in my professional opinion, there was a pod attached to the bottom of that aircraft. And therefore it was not United Airlines Flight 175.

John Lear--Member, Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Retired commercial airline pilot with over 19,000+ total hour flown in over 100 different types of planes for 10 different airlines in 60 different countries around the world. Flew for over 40 years. Holds every certificate ever offered by the FAA and has 23 different FAA type ratings. Held 17 world records including speed around the world in a Lear Jet Model 24, set in 1966. He was presented with the PATCO award for outstanding airmanship in 1968, and the Symons Wave memorial. Flight experience includes Boeing 707 and 727, McDonnell Douglas DC 8, Lockheed L 1011, and many others. Son of Bill Lear, founder of Lear Jet Corp.

-- Audio interview with Rob Balsamo 3/9/07 regarding the Flight Data Recorder information for Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon, released by the NTSB

John Lear: There are a lot of things in that tape that turned up. If you're a pilot, you say, "Hey, wait a minute. That's bull****. That could never happen in a million years."

Rob Balsamo: What did you think about 9/11 after you saw it?

John Lear: Well, you know, five minutes after it happened, I knew that it was a scam. No Boeing 757 ever crashed into the Pentagon. No Boeing 757 ever crashed at Shanksville. And no Arab hijacker, ever in a million years, ever flew into the World Trade Center. And if you got 30 minutes I'll tell you exactly why he couldn't do it the first time. Now, I'd have trouble doing it the first time. Maybe if I had a couple tries to line up a few buildings, I could have done it. But certainly not the first time and certainly not at 500 or 600 miles an hour.

Rob Balsamo: Yeah, as a matter of fact, one of our members, he was a 737 Check Airman. He was in the sim at the time on September 11, and right after it happened, they tried to duplicate it in the simulator and they said they couldn't do it. They were trying to hit the Towers and they couldn't do it.

John Lear: People ask, you know, why do I think that 9/11 was a scam. They say, "Why would the government do that?" And I said, there's three basic reasons. Number 1, they wanted to take away all our liberties and they had to pose a threat to do that. Number 2, they wanted a reason to go into Afghanistan. Then the third thing was we had to have a pretext for going into Iraq.

Capt. Russ Wittenberg--Member, Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

U.S. Air Force and retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.

-- Video interview 9/11 Ripple Effect 8/07: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11. Flight number 175 and Flight 93: the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville, and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757 767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding its design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high speed high banked turns, exceeding pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

-- Article 7/17/05: "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying."

-- Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous.

It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."

Commander Ralph Kolstad--Member, Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

U.S. Navy (ret); retired commercial airline captain with 27 years experience. Aircraft flown: Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD 80, and Fokker F 100. Retired fighter pilot. Former Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School (Topgun). 20 year Navy career. Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F 4 Phantom, Douglas A 4 Skyhawk, and Grumman F 14 Tomcat. 23,000+ total hours flown.

-- Statement to this website 8/20/07: "I started questioning the Sept 11, 2001 “story” only days after the event. It just didn't make any sense to me. How could a steel and concrete building collapse after being hit by a Boeing 767? Didn't the engineers design it to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 707, approximately the same size and weight of the 767? The evidence just didn't add up. ...

At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.

I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor at the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!

Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces?

I also personally knew American Airlines Captain “Chick” Burlingame, who was the captain of Flight 77 which allegedly hit the Pentagon, and I know he would not have given up his airplane to crazies!

And at the Shanksville Pennsylvania impact site, where is any of the wreckage?!!! Of all the pictures I have seen, there is only a hole! Where is any piece of a crashed airplane? Why was the area cordoned off, and no inspection allowed by the normal accident personnel? Where is any evidence at all?

When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official “story.”

Every question leads to another question that has not been answered by anyone in authority. This is just the beginning as to why I don’t believe the official “story” and why I want the truth to be told."

Joel M. Skousen--Member, Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Commercial pilot; former U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot. Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F 4 Phantom, Douglas A 4 Skyhawk, Grumman F 9 Cougar, North American T 2C Buckeye, various civilian planes. Member, Experimental Aircraft Association. Member, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. Former Chairman of the Conservative National Committee in Washington DC and Executive Editor of Conservative Digest. Author of Essential Principles for the Conservation of Liberty (1984), The Secure Home Architectural Design, Construction and Remodeling of Self Sufficient Residences and Retreats (1982, 1999), How to Implement a High Security Shelter in the Home (1996), Strategic Relocation North American Guide to Safe Places (1998), Foundations of the Ideal State (2007).

-- Essay Debunking the Debunkers 2/14/05: "For over a decade now, the PTB [Powers That Be] have used an odd vehicle to do their debunking on a variety of issues Popular Mechanics Magazine (a Hearst publication). I suppose they are targeting the back yard mechanic and auto enthusiast crowd, who are often prone to accepting conspiracy facts and theories.

In the March 2005 issue, PM magazine singled out 16 issues or claims of the 9/11 skeptics that point to government collusion and systematically attempted to debunk each one. Of the 16, most missed the mark and almost half were straw men arguments either ridiculous arguments that few conspiracists believed or restatements of the arguments that were highly distorted so as to make them look weaker than they really were.

I am one of those who claim there are factual arguments pointing to conspiracy, and that truth is not served by taking cheap shots at those who see gaping flaws in the government story.

There is significant evidence that the aircraft impacts did not cause the collapse of the Twin Towers.

The issues of the penetration hole [at the Pentagon] and the lack of large pieces of debris simply do not jive with the official story, but they are explainable if you include the parking lot video evidence that shows a huge white explosion at impact. This cannot happen with an aircraft laden only with fuel. It can only happen in the presence of high explosives." http://www.rense.com

Lt. Col. Jeff Latas--Member, Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

U.S. Air Force (ret); former combat fighter pilot. Aerospace engineer. Currently Captain at a major airline. Combat experience includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch. Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F 15E Strike Eagle and General Dynamics F 111 Aardvark fighter/bomber. Former President, U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board. Also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review. Awarded Distinguish Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals. 20 year Air Force career.

-- Audio interview with Rob Balsamo 6/25/07 regarding the 9/11 Commission's account of the impact of Flight 77 at the Pentagon and discrepancies with the actual Flight Data Recorder information:

"After I did my own analysis of it, it's obvious that there are discrepancies between the two stories: between the 9/11 Commission and the flight data recorder information. And I think that's where we really need to focus a lot of our attention to get the help that we need in order to put pressure on government agencies to actually do a real investigation of 9/11. And not just from a security standpoint, but from even an aviation standpoint, like any accident investigation would actually help the aviators out by finding reasons for things happening.

The things that really got my attention were the amount of descent rate that you had to have at the end of the flight, of Flight 77, that would have made it practically impossible to hit the light poles. [Editor's note: destruction of the light poles near the Pentagon by Flight 77 was stated in the 9/11 Commission Report.] Essentially, it would have been too high at that point to the point of impact where the main body of the airplane was hitting between the first and second floor of the Pentagon. ...

You know, I'd ride my bike to the Pentagon. So, you know I'm a little bit familiar with that area. [Editor's note: Lt. Col. Latas served as a Weapons Requirement Officer at the Pentagon.] But, you know, that kind of descent rate it would have been impossible essentially for the results that we see physically from what the flight data recorder was recording. Like I say, that's an area that I think deserves explanation.

The ground track [the path of the airplane] is off from the 9/11 Commission. There are several things that can be brought up but it's been a while since I've seen the film and looked at the flight data recorder. And I can't think of all the discrepancies I saw, but there are several there. [The film he refers to is the video documentary, Pandora's Black Box, Chapter 2, Flight of American 77.]

And I think that we Americans need to demand further investigation just to clarify the discrepancies that you've [Pilots for 9/11 Truth] found. And I think that we need to be getting on the phone with our Congressmen and women and letting them know that we don't accept the excuses that we're hearing now, that we want true investigators to do a true investigation." http://video.google.com

Commander Ted Muga, BS CE--Member, Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired Pan Am commercial airline pilot. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707 and 727. Retired Civil Engineer. Retired Naval aviator. Aircraft flown: Grumman E 1 Tracer and E 2 Hawkeye.

-- Interview on the Alex Jones Show, 4/11/07:

Alex Jones: Recap Hani Hanjour's maneuver, what they claim go through the maneuver they claim he did and then what supposedly happened there at the Pentagon.

Commander Muga: The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...

When a commercial airplane gets that high, it gets very, very close to getting into what you refer to as a speed high speed stall. And a high speed stall can be very, very violent on a commercial type aircraft and you never want to get into that situation. I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature.

And as far as hijacking the airplanes, once again getting back to the nature of pilots and airplanes, there is no way that a pilot would give up an airplane to hijackers. ...

I mean, hell, a guy doesn't give up a TV remote control much less a complicated 757. And so to think that pilots would allow a plane to be taken over by a couple of 5 foot 7, 150 pound guys with a one inch blade boxcutter is ridiculous.

And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. There's a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a split second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual.

Commercial airplanes are very, very complex pieces of machines. And they're designed for two pilots up there, not just two amateur pilots, but two qualified commercial pilots up there. And to think that you're going to get an amateur up into the cockpit and fly, much less navigate, it to a designated target, the probability is so low, that it's bordering on impossible." Appears half way through the second hour segment at http://www.realradioarchives.com

Col. George Nelson, MBA--Member, Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

U.S. Air Force (ret)–Licensed commercial pilot. Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34 year Air Force career. Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic.

-- Essay: "In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft and in most cases the precise cause of the accident.

The government alleges that four wide body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11, 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view.

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged.

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history." http://www.physics911.net

Ralph W. Omholt

Commercial airline pilot. Aircraft flown: Boeing 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and McDonnell Douglas DC 10.

-- Statement: "Almost nothing in the "official" 9 11 account proves to be factual. For all the purported U.S. failures; no one was punished most were rewarded.

At the 9 11 Pentagon, the world witnessed a fire and suggestions of explosions. Airport fire trucks rushed to the scene of a purported “crash” site without discovering an airplane. There is no viable evidence of burning jet fuel. Just the statement, "They say it was an airplane." The pre collapse Pentagon section showed no ‘forward moving’ damage. The damage is at the wrong location. The expected “crash” damage doesn't exist. There was no particular physical evidence of the expected "wreckage." There was no tail, no wings; no damage consistent with a B 757 “crash.” Even the Pentagon lawn was undamaged! The geometry of the day certifies the ‘official’ account as a blatant lie. The few aircraft parts discovered at the Pentagon are highly suspect. The dramatic "witness" accounts lack supporting physical evidence with the exception of those who described the incredibly few aircraft parts. All images show that the building wasn't aggressively searched for survivors. Lacking any 'expected' clues, one is left to ask, "Who said this was an airplane crash in the first place?"

The purported Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania is quite similar.

Since 9 11, it was discovered that there was no expected Air Force fighter response. By all appearances, the expected fighters were held back from interfering with or witnessing the unfolding events. The fighter onboard electronics would have not only offered an intercept target but would have displayed and recorded the forbidden reality of the day. Of particular interest would be the fate of two obviously missing airliners.

The alleged hijackers apparently were not on board the aircraft! Their names were not on any passenger manifests yet shown. The ‘names’ of at least seven of the alleged hijackers were discovered to be still alive with no questions being asked about whom the real hijackers were. No attempt has been made to discover the “known terrorists.” There were at least four hijackers – all evidence pointing to their being highly qualified jet pilots not zealous Arab wannabes.

As the names of “al Qaeda” and “bin Laden” continue to be pandered in the shadows of “terrorism,” journalists continue to discover that the bin Laden family was given the treatment of royalty, immediately following 9 11. ...

The legacy of 9 11 is that America and its Constitution is far more threatened from the White House, than the caves of Afghanistan." http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exp.htm

Personal website: http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exp.htm

Dennis Cimino

Commercial pilot rating for 25 years. Systems Engineer. Navy Combat Systems Specialist (Radar, ECM, UHF/VHF/HF COMMS., GPS, INS, SATNAV).

-- Statement to this website 6/3/07: "I have been a licensed pilot with a commercial rating, multi engine, IFR, since 1981. Prior to that, I served as an Electronic Warfare / Electronic Signals Intelligence (EW ELINT) specialist in the U.S. Navy, with many 'first time' signal intercepts in the national (NSA) sigint database. Since I left the Navy in 1979, I have been heavily involved in DoD weapons system testing and certification. I have held high level clearances most of my career.

There is no doubt in my mind that what transpired on September 11, 2001, was an inside job carried out by members of our own government. Based on my experience as a commercial pilot, I do not believe that it's possible for four large commercial airliners to have gone off course for as long as they did and as far as they did and not be intercepted by Air Force pilots without the explicit cooperation of highly placed people in the military and government.

I also do not believe that both of the WTC Twin Towers could have been identically pulverized and that both identically collapsed into their own footprints as a result of a single airplane impact and the fire from a few thousand gallons of jet fuel. I also do not believe that WTC Building 7, which wasn't even hit by an airplane, could have entirely collapsed as a result of a few fires, particularly in a manner that is entirely consistent with a controlled demolition.

Additionally, the visible evidence at the Pentagon is inconsistent with an impact by a Boeing 757. There was virtually no debris from the 80 ton airplane, except a few small pieces that were picked up by hand. Nor was there any evidence of holes in the building that surely would have resulted from the impacts of the two 6 ton RB 211 engines on the alleged Boeing 757. Similarly, at Shanksville, PA, the small gash in the earth is far too small to have resulted from the impact of a Boeing 757.

All of these factors have convinced me that our government was fully onboard with what took place on 9/11. The official account of 9/11 is absolute B.S. We, as citizens of this great country, need to do research, question the government, and demand a full, impartial investigation to determine what actually took place that day."

Robin Hordon

Former Certified Commercial Pilot. Former Certified Flight Instructor and Certified Ground Instructor. Former FAA Air Traffic Controller at the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center, located in Nashua, NH, 1970 1981. After leaving the FAA, he had a 12 year career in the field of comedy ending up as artistic coordinator for "Catch A Rising Star" in Harvard Square in Cambridge, MA.

-- Statement to this website 4/10/07: "I knew within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job. Based on my 11 year experience as an FAA Air Traffic Controller in the busy Northeast corridor, including hundreds of hours of training, briefings, air refuelings, low altitude bombing drills, participating in huge military exercises, daily military training exercises, interacting on a routine basis directly with NORAD radar personnel, and having had my own direct experience dealing with in flight emergency situations, including two instances of hijacked commercial airliners, I state unequivocally: there is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot completely out of the sky by our jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our military wanted it to happen.

It is important for people to understand that for scrambling jet fighters to intercept aircraft showing the signs of experiencing "IN FLIGHT EMERGENCIES" - such as going off course without authorization, losing a transponder signal, and/or losing radio contact - is a common and routine task executed jointly between the FAA and NORAD controllers. The entire "national defense first responder" intercept system has many highly trained civilian and military personnel who are committed and well trained to this task. FAA and NORAD continuously monitor our skies and fighter planes and pilots are on the ready 24/7 to handle these situations. Jet fighters typically intercept any suspect plane over the United States within 10 15 minutes of notification of a problem.

This type of "immediate, high speed, high priority and emergency" scramble had been happening regularly approximately 75 to 150 times per year for ten years.

I believe that 9/11 was what is known as a "False Flag Operation," in which a country inflicts casualties upon itself, and then blames it on an enemy that they want to go to war against. It is one more instance in the United States’ long history of using "False Flag Operations" and blatant propaganda to ramp up hostile emotions towards an enemy in a population otherwise resistant to going to war."

-- Statement: "When it became clear that there hadn't been a systems failure of any kind on the morning of September 11th, Hordon was certain that something had gone terribly wrong within the upper echelons of authority. A pilot (third level air carrier) as well as an ATC, he is well versed on in flight emergency protocol. He is also adamant that if these procedures had been followed on 9/11, not one of the hijacked planes would have reached their targets.

"I'm sorry, but American 11 should have been intercepted over southwest Connecticut - bang, done deal."

The unfathomable delays seen in military action on 9/11 are inconceivable to those who have painstakingly investigated the matter and for a man who worked for years keeping air travel over the U.S. safe. ...

"I think we all have to agree that, one way or another, the U.S. military was involved in the attacks. The advantage that Rumsfeld had is that he can classify, reshape, make available, and make unavailable any information that he wants at any time and deny that information to the public for any reason, especially national security." http://www.prisonplanet.com

Peter Rapp--Member, Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Owner of service company carrying out business flights in Europe (PA 46 Turbo Malibu JetProp and Beechcraft Kingair 90). Private pilot IR (Austria). 950 hours flight time. Aircraft flown: Piper Turbo Arrow, PA 32T Saratoga, Cessna 172 and 182T Garmin 1000.

-- Statement: "Thanks to PatriotsQuestion911 for the outstanding work you are doing. Your site is a perfect eye opener in 9/11 discussions. It underlines, by the great number of personalities speaking out, that the truth about the 9/11 attacks and their geopolitical background can no longer be denied as ‘conspiracy theories.’" July 16, 1007

Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford

U.S. Marine Corps (ret); retired U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown. 20 year Marine Corps career. Aircraft flown: Douglas A 4 Skyhawk, Lockheed C 130H Hercules. 10,000+ total hours flown.

-- Letter to the Editor 2/5/07 regarding 9/11: "Our government has been hijacked by means of a "new Pearl Harbor" and a lot of otherwise good and decent people who are gullible enough to think that the first three steel framed buildings in history fall down because they have some fires that the fire fighter on the scene said could be knocked down with a couple of hoses and through which people walked before they were photographed looking out the holes where the plane hit . One of these, bldg 7, was never hit by a plane, and even NIST is ashamed to advance a reason for its collapse. And, miracle of miracles, these three buildings just happened to be leased and insured by the same guy who is on tape saying they decided to "PULL" the last one to fall." http://michigandaily.com

-- Statement to this website 2/20/07: "This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush bashing. It's about our country, our constitution, and our future.

Your countrymen have been murdered, and the more you delve into it, the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.

If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and if you have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11 but you are too lazy or fearful ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you? Scholars for 9/11 truth have developed reams of scientific data. Michael Ruppert published an exhaustive account of the case from the viewpoint of a trained investigator. David Ray Griffin provides a context for the unanswered or badly answered questions that should nag at anyone who pretends to love this country.

Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it? ...

Do a little research. Google is a wonderful tool.

What does it all add up to? The Commission was, as was the Warren Commission before it, a dog and pony show."

Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS

U.S. Air Force (ret); retired U.S. Air Force fighter pilot. Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F 15E Strike Eagle, General Dynamics / Lockheed Martin F 16 Fighting Falcon, McDonnell Douglas F 18 Hornet, General Dynamics F 111 Aardvark fighter/bomber, Boeing B 1 Bomber, MiG 29 (Russian fighter), and Suu 22. Flew combat missions over Iraq. Former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School and NATO’s Tactical Leadership Program. 20 year Air Force career.

-- Statement to this website 3/25/07: "After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001, were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back.”

The "collapse" of WTC Building 7 shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre planned. There is simply no way to demolish a 47 story building (on fire) over a coffee break. It is also impossible to report the building’s collapse before it happened, as BBC News did, unless it was pre planned. Further damning evidence is Larry Silverstein's videotaped confession in which he states "they made that decision to pull [WTC 7], and we watched the building collapse."

We cannot let the pursuit of justice fail. Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.

We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason!"

Col. Robert Bowman, PhD

U.S. Air Force (ret); former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech). Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. 22 year Air Force career. Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University.

-- Video 9/11/04: "A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible. There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. Taken together, these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible.

Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.

I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover up, the very kindest thing we can say is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen. Now, some people will say that’s much too kind; however, even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder."

"We want truthful answers to question. As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:

- Investigation by N.Y. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer

- Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.

- Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.

- The formation of a truly independent citizens based inquiry."

http://www.911truth.org/article

Lt. Col. Stephen L. Butler, EdD

U.S. Air Force (ret); former Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute. Served as a Boeing B 52 bomber Radar Navigator in the Gulf War. 24 year Air Force career.

-- Article 6/4/02: "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism." http://www.truthout.org/docs-02/06.06E.butler.bush.htm

Capt. Omar Pradhan

U.S. Air Force – Former AWACS command pilot. Former Flight Instructor, U.S. Air Force Academy. Planes flown: Boeing E 3 Sentry AWACS (militarized Boeing 707 320B). 1,900+ hours flight time (350+ hours of combat air time over Afghanistan and Iraq). 9 years of distinguished Air Force service; Voluntarily Separated (Honorably) in July of 2007 to attend Law School.

-- Statement to this website 8/6/07: "As a proud American, as a distinguished USAF E 3 AWACS Aircraft Commander (with 350+ hours of combat time logged over Afghanistan and Iraq), and as a former U.S. Air Force Academy Flight Instructor, I warmly endorse the professional inquiry and pursuit of comprehensive truth sought by the Pilots for 911 Truth organization and the PatriotsQuestion911 website."

Gen. Hosni Mubarak

President of Egypt, 1981 present. Former Vice President, 1975 1981. Former Commander of the Egyptian Air Force and Deputy Minister of War. Former military pilot. Bio available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosni-Mubarak

-- CNN Interview 9/15/01 regarding 9/11: Those who piloted the 757 into the Pentagon should have flown in the area a long time. The Pentagon is not very high; if a pilot could come straight to the Pentagon like this to hit, he should have flown a lot in this area to know the obstacles which could meet him when he is flying very low with a big commercial plane to hit the Pentagon in a special place. Somebody has studied this very well - someone has flown in this area very much.

Q: Are you suggesting it was an inside operation, may I ask, and who do you think is behind this?

Mubarak: Frankly speaking, I don't want to jump to conclusions. Let us wait and see what is the result of the investigations, because something like this done in the United States is not an easy thing. I am speaking as a former pilot. I know that very well: I flew very heavy planes, I flew fighters. I know that very well that this is not an easy thing, so I think we should not jump to conclusions from now."

-- BBC Interview 9/19/01: "When asked about the expected repercussions of an assault on Afghanistan and the killing of Osama bin Laden, Mubarak said he didn't believe bin Laden alone was responsible for the attacks on the US. "American experts also believe the operation is beyond bin Laden." http://www.presidency.gov.eg

-- Article 10/25/01: "I find it hard to believe that people who were learning to fly in Florida could, within a year and a half, fly large commercial airlines and hit with accuracy the towers of the World Trade Center which would appear, to the pilot from the air, the size of a pencil. Only a professional pilot could carry out this mission, not someone who learned to fly for 18 months in Florida." http://www.sis.gov.eg

Capt. Daniel Davis

U.S. Army; former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director. Turbine engineering specialist. Founder and former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company (15 years). Former Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division (15 years). Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam. Also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago Milwaukee Defense Area. Private pilot.

-- Statement to this website 3/23/07: "As a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire. Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed. Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon? If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there.

Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control. No way! With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could!

Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists.”

Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a "Conspiracy Theory" does not change the truth. It seems "Something is rotten in the State."

Alfons Olszewski--Co-founder, Veterans for Truth.

Former U.S. Army Aircraft Maintenance Crew Chief qualified on Bell AH 1 Cobra, UH 1 Iroquois "Huey" Helicopters, and Hughes OH 6A Cayuse (LOCH) Helicopter. Vietnam Veteran.

-- Essay 8/7/06: "I began the investigation of 9/11 on 9/12/2001 because some of the planes were known Air Emergencies for nearly an hour. I began by going to the FAA and looking up the Chapter on Air Emergencies in the FAA Manual. Based on what was said there, I concluded that NORAD and or the FAA had not followed the protocols.

The Andrews AFB Mission Statement was listed as "The Highest State of Combat Readiness" in the Air National Guard. I bookmarked the page, and less than a week later, the Andrews AFB site was changed; the Mission Statement page was no longer available for viewing. "They" had blocked access to it. A short time later, the FAA manual changed as well, and access to the page on Air Emergences was blocked and still is to this day. These two events made me very suspicious, and with further investigation, my suspicions have not only not abated, they have increased to a point where I am no longer suspicious - I am convinced that 9/11 was an inside/outside job.

On April 11, 2006, The Veterans for 911 Truth was created by people who met by chance at The Scholars for 911 Truth Forum. They are good people with something in common; they are people who are patriots who are champions of truth and justice. They understand that what happened on 911, and they know that what has ensued since is a coup d'etat." http://www.911citizenscourt.com

Rodger Herbst

BAAE (Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering), ME (Mechanical Engineering). Former Flight Control (Boeing 737) and Simulation (Boeing 777, 787) Engineer with the Boeing Company.

-- Essay 6/12/07: "So, why did the towers collapse? By now, almost six years later, we should have a definitive answer, but we do not. We have the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) study; we have the Federal Emergency Management Agency Building Performance Assessment (FEMA BAP); we have the Silverstein reports; we have the 9/11 Commission Report; and we have the National Institute of Standards& Technology (NIST) reports and ARUP commentary.

Although these reports vary in details, and in some cases contradict one another, what we finally have is the Official Story, quoted verbatim by the US media: the impact of commercial aircraft, and the ensuing fire caused by aircraft fuel led to the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, the North and South World Trade Center Towers, on September 11, 2001. The truth of the Official Story has never been proven but has been implicitly assumed by all of the "Official" investigation reports." http://www.seattle911visibilityproject.org

G.W. (Jerry) Longspaugh, MS

Aerospace Engineering (1942 2006) – Retired Aerospace Engineer

-- Essay : "The debris found outside the Pentagon is inconsistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 or any aircraft of comparable dimensions. In particular, in the absence of some agency (possibly unknown to physical science) that removed the wings, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that the wings (and therefore the aircraft) were never present in the first place. In this case, no Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001." http://www.physics911.net

Erin Myers

Former U.S. Army Aviation Mechanic, working on Sikorsky EH 60 and UH 60 Black Hawk Helicopters, Hughes / McDonnell Douglas AH 64 Apache Helicopter, and Bell OH 58 Kiowa Helicopter. FAA licensed airframe and power-plant mechanic. Experimental Aircraft Builder, including: 1990 KitFox, Lanceair, Glassair, variety of Micro and Ultra lights. Private Pilot. Aircraft flown: Cessna, Piper, Champion Citabria, Weaver Aircraft (WACO) biplane, Pitts biplane, Robinson R 22 Helicopter, Bell 206 JetRanger Helicopter. 600 hours flight time.

-- Statement to this website 7/23/07: "I cannot accept the official 9/11 Commission Report and the popular narrative derived from its conclusions. The lies, omissions, and distortions of the Official Account, combined with a generally trusting and frequently gullible populous, have created a dangerous cleaving of our society into two mutually exclusive world views regarding the events of 9/11.

No matter who, what, and how exactly the final story of 9/11 is going to be told, as truth will always out, one chapter which can never be excluded is the five plus years of continued obfuscation and corruption of our government, which has abandoned the basic principles of jurisprudence, the rule of law, and recognition of the dignity of all human beings. This is truly our government's blackest days, and We the People's most shameful affair to date for allowing it to continue.

We have a most serious mess to clean up, as We The People can not shirk our inescapable responsibility for our government and its actions.

We can only recover our direction and moral compass by dismissing the 9/11 Commission Report and starting again, largely from scratch, to investigate the events of 9/11."

Traci Parris

Former U.S. Air Force jet engine mechanic. 11 year Air Force career. Former aircraft mechanic. Former aircraft assembly supervisor. Currently working in Product Support Engineering for F 16 Fighting Falcon.

-- Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition: "To accept the fact that 911 was an inside job turns one's life long beliefs upside down and causes a person to question so many aspects of our own government. One comes to a point of realization that it is not Republican vs Democrats, but good versus evil (with many evil and a very few good on each side)." http://www.ae911truth.org

Editor's note: In August 2006, Pilots for 9/11 Truth received from the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) a copy of the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) data of Flight 77, which, according to the official account, hit the Pentagon.

The association conducted a professional analysis of the data and has concluded, "The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon."

Most notably, the altitude of Flight 77 upon reaching the Pentagon was more than 200 feet too high to have impacted the building. At this altitude, it could also not have downed the five light poles, as reported, nor could it have been the aircraft shown in the stop action photos of the impact at the Pentagon provided by the Defense Department.

Additionally, the FDR data reveals the path taken by Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon differs significantly from the official account, in that it approached the Pentagon from north of the Navy Annex and CITGO gas station, considerably north of the official account. This more northerly approach is corroborated by the testimony of Pentagon Police Officers Sgt. Chadwick Brooks and Sgt. William Lagasse, who were on duty at or near the CITGO gas station on 9/11 and who were eyewitnesses to the impact. The PentaCon documentary recorded the testimony of these two officers and several other witnesses who also corroborate this flight path.

This more northerly flight path is also inconsistent with the swath of destruction inside the Pentagon, which runs from the southwest to northeast, as reported in the Pentagon Building Damage Report. The more northerly flight path is also inconsistent with Flight 77 downing the five light poles. See the association's one hour video documentary and press release for more details.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth Members

Robert Balsamo, Co-founder of Veterans for Truth

Glen Stanish, Co-founder of Veterans for Truth

Capt. Russ Wittenberg

John Lear

Lt. Col. Jeff Latas

Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer

Lt. Col. Field McConnell

Capt. Paul A. Trood

Jim Mustanich

Commander Ted Muga

Col. Robert Bowman

John Panarelli

Lt. Col. Shelton

F. Lankford

Dennis Spear

Alfons Olszewski. Co-founder of Veterans for Truth

Col. George Nelson

Larry Patriarca

Capt. Steve Nieman

Joel M. Skousen

Col. Michael Harley

Mathias Frey

Jeff Dahlstrom

Capt. Joe H. Ferguson

William Reyes

Capt. Ralph Kolstad

Capt. Omar Pradhan

Jared Eastley

Mike Aybar

James Edward Forst

Hamish Brannan

Didier "Jay" Weenen

Peter Rapp

Erin Myers

Sean Dulac

Christina Merrick

Dave Kisor, MA

Slawomir M. Kozak

Timothy Young

Greg Stone

Michael Herzog

Kevin Smith

Rodger Herbst

Jeff Beck

Craig Hill

Frederick W. Harvey

John W. Travis

Rob Bishop

*************************************************

VOTE PAPER BALLOT...

ENSURE THAT YOUR VOTE COUNTS!

*************************************************

The Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution. They consist of 85 essays outlining how this new government would operate and why this type of government was the best choice for the United States of America. The essays were signed PUBLIUS. The authors of some papers are under dispute, but the general consensus is that Alexander Hamilton wrote fifty two, James Madison wrote twenty eight, and John Jay contributed the remaining five. The Federalist Papers remain today as an excellent reference for anyone who wants to understand the U.S. Constitution. The following is attributed to Alexander Hamilton.

To the People of the State of New York:

ASSUMING it therefore as an established truth that the several States, in case of disunion, or such combinations of them as might happen to be formed out of the wreck of the general Confederacy, would be subject to those vicissitudes of peace and war, of friendship and enmity, with each other, which have fallen to the lot of all neighboring nations not united under one government, let us enter into a concise detail of some of the consequences that would attend such a situation.

War between the States, in the first period of their separate existence, would be accompanied with much greater distresses than it commonly is in those countries where regular military establishments have long obtained. The disciplined armies always kept on foot on the continent of Europe, though they bear a malignant aspect to liberty and economy, have, notwithstanding, been productive of the signal advantage of rendering sudden conquests impracticable, and of preventing that rapid desolation which used to mark the progress of war prior to their introduction. The art of fortification has contributed to the same ends. The nations of Europe are encircled with chains of fortified places, which mutually obstruct invasion. Campaigns are wasted in reducing two or three frontier garrisons, to gain admittance into an enemy's country. Similar impediments occur at every step, to exhaust the strength and delay the progress of an invader. Formerly, an invading army would penetrate into the heart of a neighboring country almost as soon as intelligence of its approach could be received; but now a comparatively small force of disciplined troops, acting on the defensive, with the aid of posts, is able to impede, and finally to frustrate, the enterprises of one much more considerable. The history of war, in that quarter of the globe, is no longer a history of nations subdued and empires overturned, but of towns taken and retaken; of battles that decide nothing; of retreats more beneficial than victories; of much effort and little acquisition.

In this country the scene would be altogether reversed. The jealousy of military establishments would postpone them as long as possible. The want of fortifications, leaving the frontiers of one state open to another, would facilitate inroads. The populous States would, with little difficulty, overrun their less populous neighbors. Conquests would be as easy to be made as difficult to be retained. War, therefore, would be desultory and predatory. PLUNDER and devastation ever march in the train of irregulars. The calamities of individuals would make the principal figure in the events which would characterize our military exploits.

This picture is not too highly wrought; though, I confess, it would not long remain a just one. Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.

The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it. Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them. The weaker States or confederacies would first have recourse to them, to put themselves upon an equality with their more potent neighbors. They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.

The expedients which have been mentioned would soon give the States or confederacies that made use of them a superiority over their neighbors. Small states, or states of less natural strength, under vigorous governments, and with the assistance of disciplined armies, have often triumphed over large states, or states of greater natural strength, which have been destitute of these advantages. Neither the pride nor the safety of the more important States or confederacies would permit them long to submit to this mortifying and adventitious superiority. They would quickly resort to means similar to those by which it had been effected, to reinstate themselves in their lost pre eminence. Thus, we should, in a little time, see established in every part of this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge of the Old World. This, at least, would be the natural course of things; and our reasonings will be the more likely to be just, in proportion as they are accommodated to this standard.

These are not vague inferences drawn from supposed or speculative defects in a Constitution, the whole power of which is lodged in the hands of a people, or their representatives and delegates, but they are solid conclusions, drawn from the natural and necessary progress of human affairs.

It may, perhaps, be asked, by way of objection to this, why did not standing armies spring up out of the contentions which so often distracted the ancient republics of Greece? Different answers, equally satisfactory, may be given to this question. The industrious habits of the people of the present day, absorbed in the pursuits of gain, and devoted to the improvements of agriculture and commerce, are incompatible with the condition of a nation of soldiers, which was the true condition of the people of those republics. The means of revenue, which have been so greatly multiplied by the increase of gold and silver and of the arts of industry, and the science of finance, which is the offspring of modern times, concurring with the habits of nations, have produced an entire revolution in the system of war, and have rendered disciplined armies, distinct from the body of the citizens, the inseparable companions of frequent hostility.

There is a wide difference, also, between military establishments in a country seldom exposed by its situation to internal invasions, and in one which is often subject to them, and always apprehensive of them. The rulers of the former can have a good pretext, if they are even so inclined, to keep on foot armies so numerous as must of necessity be maintained in the latter. These armies being, in the first case, rarely, if at all, called into activity for interior defense, the people are in no danger of being broken to military subordination. The laws are not accustomed to relaxations, in favor of military exigencies; the civil state remains in full vigor, neither corrupted, nor confounded with the principles or propensities of the other state. The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an over match for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil, and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights. The army under such circumstances may usefully aid the magistrate to suppress a small faction, or an occasional mob, or insurrection; but it will be unable to enforce encroachments against the united efforts of the great body of the people.

In a country in the predicament last described, the contrary of all this happens. The perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense. The continual necessity for their services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. The inhabitants of territories, often the theatre of war, are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights; and by degrees the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but as their superiors. The transition from this disposition to that of considering them masters, is neither remote nor difficult; but it is very difficult to prevail upon a people under such impressions, to make a bold or effectual resistance to usurpations supported by the military power.

The kingdom of Great Britain falls within the first description. An insular situation, and a powerful marine, guarding it in a great measure against the possibility of foreign invasion, supersede the necessity of a numerous army within the kingdom. A sufficient force to make head against a sudden descent, till the militia could have time to rally and embody, is all that has been deemed requisite. No motive of national policy has demanded, nor would public opinion have tolerated, a larger number of troops upon its domestic establishment. There has been, for a long time past, little room for the operation of the other causes, which have been enumerated as the consequences of internal war. This peculiar felicity of situation has, in a great degree, contributed to preserve the liberty which that country to this day enjoys, in spite of the prevalent venality and corruption. If, on the contrary, Britain had been situated on the continent, and had been compelled, as she would have been, by that situation, to make her military establishments at home coextensive with those of the other great powers of Europe, she, like them, would in all probability be, at this day, a victim to the absolute power of a single man. 'T is possible, though not easy, that the people of that island may be enslaved from other causes; but it cannot be by the prowess of an army so inconsiderable as that which has been usually kept up within the kingdom.

If we are wise enough to preserve the Union we may for ages enjoy an advantage similar to that of an insulated situation. Europe is at a great distance from us. Her colonies in our vicinity will be likely to continue too much disproportioned in strength to be able to give us any dangerous annoyance. Extensive military establishments cannot, in this position, be necessary to our security. But if we should be disunited, and the integral parts should either remain separated, or, which is most probable, should be thrown together into two or three confederacies, we should be, in a short course of time, in the predicament of the continental powers of Europe our liberties would be a prey to the means of defending ourselves against the ambition and jealousy of each other.

This is an idea not superficial or futile, but solid and weighty. It deserves the most serious and mature consideration of every prudent and honest man of whatever party. If such men will make a firm and solemn pause, and meditate dispassionately on the importance of this interesting idea; if they will contemplate it in all its attitudes, and trace it to all its consequences, they will not hesitate to part with trivial objections to a Constitution, the rejection of which would in all probability put a final period to the Union. The airy phantoms that flit before the distempered imaginations of some of its adversaries would quickly give place to the more substantial forms of dangers, real, certain, and formidable.

PUBLIUS.